| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 11:54:32 -0500
From: Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>
To: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
CC: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
Clement Leger <cleger@...ray.eu>,
Loic Pallardy <loic.pallardy@...com>,
Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@...com>,
Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@...com>,
<linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] remoteproc: add support for a new 64-bit trace
version
On 5/21/20 2:42 PM, Suman Anna wrote:
> Hi Bjorn,
>
> On 5/21/20 1:04 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>> On Wed 25 Mar 13:47 PDT 2020, Suman Anna wrote:
>>
>>> Introduce a new trace entry resource structure that accommodates
>>> a 64-bit device address to support 64-bit processors. This is to
>>> be used using an overloaded version value of 1 in the upper 32-bits
>>> of the previous resource type field. The new resource still uses
>>> 32-bits for the length field (followed by a 32-bit reserved field,
>>> so can be updated in the future), which is a sufficiently large
>>> trace buffer size. A 32-bit padding field also had to be added
>>> to align the device address on a 64-bit boundary, and match the
>>> usage on the firmware side.
>>>
>>> The remoteproc debugfs logic also has been adjusted accordingly.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_debugfs.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++-----
>>> include/linux/remoteproc.h | 26 ++++++++++++++++
>>> 3 files changed, 87 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
>>> b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
>>> index 53bc37c508c6..b9a097990862 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
>>> @@ -609,21 +609,45 @@ void rproc_vdev_release(struct kref *ref)
>>> *
>>> * Returns 0 on success, or an appropriate error code otherwise
>>> */
>>> -static int rproc_handle_trace(struct rproc *rproc, struct
>>> fw_rsc_trace *rsc,
>>> +static int rproc_handle_trace(struct rproc *rproc, void *rsc,
>>> int offset, int avail, u16 ver)
>>> {
>>> struct rproc_debug_trace *trace;
>>> struct device *dev = &rproc->dev;
>>> + struct fw_rsc_trace *rsc1;
>>> + struct fw_rsc_trace2 *rsc2;
>>> char name[15];
>>> + size_t rsc_size;
>>> + u32 reserved;
>>> + u64 da;
>>> + u32 len;
>>> +
>>> + if (!ver) {
>>
>> This looks like a switch to me, but I also do think this looks rather
>> crude, if you spin off the tail of this function and call it from a
>> rproc_handle_trace() and rproc_handle_trace64() I believe this would be
>> cleaner.
>
> Yeah, ok. Will refactor for this in v2.
>
>>
>>> + rsc1 = (struct fw_rsc_trace *)rsc;
>>> + rsc_size = sizeof(*rsc1);
>>> + reserved = rsc1->reserved;
>>> + da = rsc1->da;
>>> + len = rsc1->len;
>>> + } else if (ver == 1) {
>>> + rsc2 = (struct fw_rsc_trace2 *)rsc;
>>> + rsc_size = sizeof(*rsc2);
>>> + reserved = rsc2->reserved;
>>> + da = rsc2->da;
>>> + len = rsc2->len;
>>> + } else {
>>> + dev_err(dev, "unsupported trace rsc version %d\n", ver);
>>
>> If we use "type" to describe your 64-bit-da-trace then this sanity check
>> would have been taken care of by the core.
>>
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> + }
>>> - if (sizeof(*rsc) > avail) {
>>> + if (rsc_size > avail) {
>>> dev_err(dev, "trace rsc is truncated\n");
>>> return -EINVAL;
>>> }
>>> /* make sure reserved bytes are zeroes */
>>> - if (rsc->reserved) {
>>> - dev_err(dev, "trace rsc has non zero reserved bytes\n");
>>> + if (reserved) {
>>> + dev_err(dev, "trace rsc has non zero reserved bytes, value =
>>> 0x%x\n",
>>> + reserved);
>>> return -EINVAL;
>>> }
>>> @@ -632,8 +656,8 @@ static int rproc_handle_trace(struct rproc
>>> *rproc, struct fw_rsc_trace *rsc,
>>> return -ENOMEM;
>>> /* set the trace buffer dma properties */
>>> - trace->trace_mem.len = rsc->len;
>>> - trace->trace_mem.da = rsc->da;
>>> + trace->trace_mem.len = len;
>>> + trace->trace_mem.da = da;
>>> /* set pointer on rproc device */
>>> trace->rproc = rproc;
>>> @@ -652,8 +676,8 @@ static int rproc_handle_trace(struct rproc
>>> *rproc, struct fw_rsc_trace *rsc,
>>> rproc->num_traces++;
>>> - dev_dbg(dev, "%s added: da 0x%x, len 0x%x\n",
>>> - name, rsc->da, rsc->len);
>>> + dev_dbg(dev, "%s added: da 0x%llx, len 0x%x\n",
>>> + name, da, len);
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_debugfs.c
>>> b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_debugfs.c
>>> index 3560eed7a360..ff43736db45a 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_debugfs.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_debugfs.c
>>> @@ -192,7 +192,8 @@ static int rproc_rsc_table_show(struct seq_file
>>> *seq, void *p)
>>> struct resource_table *table = rproc->table_ptr;
>>> struct fw_rsc_carveout *c;
>>> struct fw_rsc_devmem *d;
>>> - struct fw_rsc_trace *t;
>>> + struct fw_rsc_trace *t1;
>>> + struct fw_rsc_trace2 *t2;
>>> struct fw_rsc_vdev *v;
>>> int i, j;
>>> @@ -205,6 +206,7 @@ static int rproc_rsc_table_show(struct seq_file
>>> *seq, void *p)
>>> int offset = table->offset[i];
>>> struct fw_rsc_hdr *hdr = (void *)table + offset;
>>> void *rsc = (void *)hdr + sizeof(*hdr);
>>> + u16 ver = hdr->st.v;
>>> switch (hdr->st.t) {
>>> case RSC_CARVEOUT:
>>> @@ -230,13 +232,32 @@ static int rproc_rsc_table_show(struct seq_file
>>> *seq, void *p)
>>> seq_printf(seq, " Name %s\n\n", d->name);
>>> break;
>>> case RSC_TRACE:
>>> - t = rsc;
>>> - seq_printf(seq, "Entry %d is of type %s\n",
>>> - i, types[hdr->st.t]);
>>> - seq_printf(seq, " Device Address 0x%x\n", t->da);
>>> - seq_printf(seq, " Length 0x%x Bytes\n", t->len);
>>> - seq_printf(seq, " Reserved (should be zero) [%d]\n",
>>> t->reserved);
>>> - seq_printf(seq, " Name %s\n\n", t->name);
>>> + if (ver == 0) {
>>
>> Again, this is a switch, here in a switch. Just defining a new
>> RSC_TRACE64 type would reduce the amount of code here...
>
> OK.
>
>>
>>> + t1 = rsc;
>>> + seq_printf(seq, "Entry %d is version %d of type %s\n",
>>> + i, ver, types[hdr->st.t]);
>>> + seq_printf(seq, " Device Address 0x%x\n",
>>> + t1->da);
>>> + seq_printf(seq, " Length 0x%x Bytes\n",
>>> + t1->len);
>>> + seq_printf(seq, " Reserved (should be zero) [%d]\n",
>>> + t1->reserved);
>>> + seq_printf(seq, " Name %s\n\n", t1->name);
>>> + } else if (ver == 1) {
>>> + t2 = rsc;
>>> + seq_printf(seq, "Entry %d is version %d of type %s\n",
>>> + i, ver, types[hdr->st.t]);
>>> + seq_printf(seq, " Device Address 0x%llx\n",
>>> + t2->da);
>>> + seq_printf(seq, " Length 0x%x Bytes\n",
>>> + t2->len);
>>> + seq_printf(seq, " Reserved (should be zero) [%d]\n",
>>> + t2->reserved);
>>> + seq_printf(seq, " Name %s\n\n", t2->name);
>>> + } else {
>>> + seq_printf(seq, "Entry %d is an unsupported version
>>> %d of type %s\n",
>>> + i, ver, types[hdr->st.t]);
>>> + }
>>> break;
>>> case RSC_VDEV:
>>> v = rsc;
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/remoteproc.h b/include/linux/remoteproc.h
>>> index 526d3cb45e37..3b3bea42f8b1 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/remoteproc.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/remoteproc.h
>>> @@ -243,6 +243,32 @@ struct fw_rsc_trace {
>>> u8 name[32];
>>> } __packed;
>>> +/**
>>> + * struct fw_rsc_trace2 - trace buffer declaration supporting 64-bits
>>> + * @padding: initial padding after type field for aligned 64-bit access
>>> + * @da: device address (64-bit)
>>> + * @len: length (in bytes)
>>> + * @reserved: reserved (must be zero)
>>> + * @name: human-readable name of the trace buffer
>>> + *
>>> + * This resource entry is an enhanced version of the fw_rsc_trace
>>> resourec entry
>>> + * and the provides equivalent functionality but designed for 64-bit
>>> remote
>>> + * processors.
>>> + *
>>> + * @da specifies the device address of the buffer, @len specifies
>>> + * its size, and @name may contain a human readable name of the
>>> trace buffer.
>>> + *
>>> + * After booting the remote processor, the trace buffers are exposed
>>> to the
>>> + * user via debugfs entries (called trace0, trace1, etc..).
>>> + */
>>> +struct fw_rsc_trace2 {
>>
>> Sounds more like fw_rsc_trace64 to me - in particular since the version
>> of trace2 is 1...
>
> Yeah, will rename this.
>
>>
>>> + u32 padding;
>>> + u64 da;
>>> + u32 len;
>>> + u32 reserved;
>>
>> What's the purpose of this reserved field?
>
> Partly to make sure the entire resource is aligned on an 8-byte, and
> partly copied over from fw_rsc_trace entry. I guess 32-bits is already
> large enough of a size for trace entries irrespective of 32-bit or
> 64-bit traces, so I doubt if we want to make the len field also a u64.
Looking at this again, I can drop both padding and reserved fields, if I
move the len field before da. Any preferences/comments?
regards
Suman
>
> regards
> Suman
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bjorn
>>
>>> + u8 name[32];
>>> +} __packed;
>>> +
>>> /**
>>> * struct fw_rsc_vdev_vring - vring descriptor entry
>>> * @da: device address
>>> --
>>> 2.23.0
>>>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists